quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Read post #88...

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
You haven't drawn out your argument to lead to god. This something that is dependent on nothing could just as well be plain matter.

quote:

Yes... but we both know this isn't so. It doesn't follow strictly from the logic that this being is Ymir, but that doesn't change the facts of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Just as a side note, and this is NOT meant to be mocking in any way so please don't take it that way - I am honestly curious...

What drives a self-proclaimed atheist to post on a Christian forum? Are they honestly curious about the things of God? Or are they here for mocking purposes only?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

quote:


My involvement here is almost exclusively in the Science & Origins forum. My interest in science and education has led me to help others come to a better understanding of science. Sadly, many here (but by no means all) are scientifically unsophisticated, and/or have been taught things that are absolutely wrong. I seek to educate and correct these errors.

What are your qualifications to do so? (honest question by the way)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yes... but we both know this isn't so. It doesn't follow strictly from the logic that this being is Ymir, but that doesn't change the facts of it.

Actually, Ymir wouldn't fit the bill as an uncaused cause, as he began to exist.

quote:

Nobody created Ymir - he arose from Ginnungagap - from potential. Nothing creates the potential for existence.

It was his being that led to creation as someone pointed out - The world is created from Ymir, not from nothing. Incidently Ymir means "the screaming one" in Old Norse, so the world was sounded into being.

And as Hammurabi pointed out, Ymirs act was to provide creation. From it everything arose and he "died" in the process.

The imagery is pretty clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Nobody created Ymir - he arose from Ginnungagap - from potential. Nothing creates the potential for existence.

It was his being that led to creation as someone pointed out - The world is created from Ymir, not from nothing. Incidently Ymir means "the screaming one" in Old Norse, so the world was sounded into being.

And as Hammurabi pointed out, Ymirs act was to provide creation. From it everything arose and he "died" in the process.

The imagery is pretty clear.

I thought he originated when "the ice of Niflheim met with Muspelheim's heat and melted".

And then he died when the "The sons of Borr" killed him?

quote:

Yes, of course. The ice of Niflheim met with Muspelheim's heat and melted is a probably as close as you can get to a void of potential if you have to use pre-science imagery. Think of the energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
As you say yourself, that is not "nothing".

There never was just "nothing". Back before anything, there was the potential for something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Yes, of course. The ice of Niflheim met with Muspelheim's heat and melted is a probably as close as you can get to a void of potential if you have to use pre-science imagery. Think of the energy fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
As you say yourself, that is not "nothing".

There never was just "nothing". Back before anything, there was the potential for something.

Ah, I see, so you don't believe literally in Norse mythology..

quote:

You cant explain quantum physics to pre-science people wihtout using imagery. Do you think the angles of the bible carries actual swords or are the swords symbolic of weapons? Have they upgraded to assult rifles?

Of course you cannot explain something as complex as creation without using a lot of imagery - heck, I can hardly wrap my mind around the Big Bang theory, and I spent most of my youth in a teaching institution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You cant explain quantum physics to pre-science people wihtout using imagery. Do you think the angles of the bible carries actual swords or are the swords symbolic of weapons? Have they upgraded to assult rifles?

Of course you cannot explain something as complex as creation without using a lot of imagery - heck, I can hardly wrap my mind around the Big Bang theory, and I spent most of my youth in a teaching institution.

Well, I never claimed that you could do any of these things - I was just confirming that you don't literally believe in the Norse mythologies.

quote:

You don't know the meaning of the words in the first place, so it is not really a case of being "literal" or not. Nordic skjalds (the keepers of the oral traditions) used kennings a whole lot. A kenning is a metaphor. Instead of saying teeth, you can use the kenning "the rocks of the mouth".

Sorry, it looses all beauty in translation.

The point is that the creation with Ymir tell us the important things about creation - our place in it.

That is also follows from pure logic is just a boon.

quote:

The logic is pretty clear:

1) Nothing comes from nothing.

Agree?

Then logic dictates that no matter how far we go back, there will never be just "Nothing".

I claim the furthest back we can go is the "potential for something - Ginnungagap.

You would claim (I assume) that God was always around.

Science claims that our best observations indicate the universe arose from ultimately unknown conditions aprox. 14 billions years ago.

Science doesn't know the conditions before the beginning.
The Bible claim God is everpresent.
Voluspa claim Ginnungagap was there before anything else.

However... if the first premisis is correct - nothing can arise from nothing - then God would have to make exceptions from the very foundation of the logical steps toward him.
Ginnungagap would however never have been "nothing".

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
There must be a cause that is outside or above our physical universe - something outside the boundaries of physics and time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
God is not a created thing.

quote:

All created things, (everything that is not God) . . .

quote:

Therefore, any explaination that attempts to remove God from a universe of existing things, in effect, removes the fact that things do indeed exist.

quote:

For if one denies the existence of a source of existence that is independant of everying for its own existence, then the existence of something would indeed HAVE to come from nothing - which is impossible, short of God's own creative ability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Well, neither of us knows Hebrew or Greek, and yet we can talk about whether our understanding of Scripture is literal or metaphorical.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
And as you have agree the reading of your mythologies is metaphorical, you agree you don't read them as literal, thus my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

This however is simply your applied understanding of words that were written, by your own acknowledgement, by people who knew nothing of physics or the universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
God is not a created thing.

How did you determine this?

quote:

All created things, (everything that is not God) . . .

Again, this is begging the question. Your opening post suggested that you had a proof for the existence of God. So far, all we get is the conclusion and a reassertion of the conclusion in the premises.

quote:

Therefore, any explaination that attempts to remove God from a universe of existing things, in effect, removes the fact that things do indeed exist.

Let me try your argument style out.

Fact: No deity can exist without another deity creating it. Therefore, there are an infinite number of deities. Any attempt to remove any one of those deities removes that fact that things do indeed exist.

There you go, argument by unassailable conclusion.

quote:

For if one denies the existence of a source of existence that is independant of everying for its own existence, then the existence of something would indeed HAVE to come from nothing - which is impossible, short of God's own creative ability.

Then you can't have God existing if you deny the source of existence for God. Deny the Uber-God and you deny the existend of God and the whole universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

I've stated the same argument a number of different ways, but I'll repeat this one...

Premise #1) Everything that exists is dependant upon something else for its existence.

Premise #2) Nothing that exists does so upon its own doing as something cannot spring into existence from nothing, and without causation.

Question: What was the cause of the first thing to exist, being that something cannot come from nothing on its own accord?

Answer: There must have been something that is dependant upon nothing to be the cause of everything that exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
I've stated the same argument a number of different ways, but I'll repeat this one...

quote:

Premise #1) Everything that exists is dependant upon something else for its existence.

Premise #2) Nothing that exists does so upon its own doing as something cannot spring into existence from nothing, and without causation.

Question: What was the cause of the first thing to exist, being that something cannot come from nothing on its own accord?

quote:

Answer: There must have been something that is dependant upon nothing to be the cause of everything that exists.

quote:

A painting is all the proof that I need to prove that there was a painter. A building is all the proof that I need to prove that there was a builder.

quote:

Any dependant thing is all the proof that I need to prove an independant source.

quote:

This is the argument that is irrefutable.

quote:

I don't care if it is stated incorrectly for you intellectual types, you get the point.

quote:

In this particular argument, I am not attempting to point to a specific source (The God of the Bible) I am merely stating that any existence cannot exist on its own and without cause - therefore something outside of our existence must have been a source. This source must therefore be dependant on nothing for it's own being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
(Incidentally, I keep saying the same thing, but wording the argument differently, and so far I've only been challenged on the wording of the argument.)

quote:

True, but we are still hampered by the fact that neither of us speak the original languages. There are lots of nuances we miss or don’t get, because we rely on other peoples translations.
Translating words changes them.

quote:

Then I might have misunderstood your point.
I assume you don’t read the Bible as literal in every sense, so what are you trying to say?

quote:

Well, that is the way to verify or reject interpretations of holy texts, no?
If you interpret the text one way, but reality (by our best understanding) say another thing, then the interpretations must be in error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
(Incidentally, I keep saying the same thing, but wording the argument differently, and so far I've only been challenged on the wording of the argument.)

No, it's not the wording, it's the logic.

You keep saying:

A) Absolutely EVERYTHING must have a creator/be dependent on something/be caused/come into being. Absolutely everything. No exceptions at all. If there were any exceptions, then my argument would fail.

B) God is an exception to A.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Ugh... I HATE the English language. One or two words can make or break a point even if they can carry the exact same meaning...

OK, I'll try wording it another way.

(Incidentally, I keep saying the same thing, but wording the argument differently, and so far I've only been challenged on the wording of the argument.)

1) Everything that "is" exists due to a cause. It does not have the power of being within itself due to the fact that it exists because of something else.

quote:

2) If something is caused by something else, . . .

quote:

3) For the first thing that came into existence, there must have been something that exists outside of the dimension of time, as even time had an origination, and outside the realm of matter and energy, as matter and energy had a beginning.

quote:

4) This original source for all being, had the power of being within itself, and was seperate from all being, as it existed before any other being as it is the source, it also never had a beginning, and will have no end.